The duty of the seller for the faults of the sold good (Art. 1490 c. c.) covers not only the actual faults but also the potential faults, especially where the subject matter of the sale is not a good of immediate consumption, as in the case of plants for production of fruits. Thus, if the seller acknowledges even only a possibility of faults, in any case his declaration implies the legal effect of dispensing the purchaser from the duty of denunciation of the faults, under Art. 1495, paragraph 2 (in conformity with the prevalent case-law of the Supreme Court, see Corte di Cassazione, sez. II, 10/09/1980, no. 5214). The equivalence before the acknowledgement of the seller and the effective faults denunciated by the purchaser is a matter of fact (that can be evaluated only before the inferior Courts and not before the Supreme Court, see Corte di Cassazione, sez. II, 28/10/1986 no. 6326).
The forfeiture of the right under Art. 1495, paragraph 2 (eight days for informing the seller of the faults in the sold good) does not run whereas the seller only acknowledges the faults in the sold good, but the limitation of a year for the remedy against the faults continues running. However if the seller, other than the acknowledgement of the faults, undertakes to remove them, a new obligation (different from the warranty against faults) arises from his undertaking and this new obligation is not subject to the limitation period of Art. 1495 c.c. but to the general limitation period under Civil Code of ten years. The ascertainment of the novation of the legal obligation against faults is in any case a matter of fact, not assessable before the Supreme Court.
In consideration of that, the Corte di Cassazione rejected the claim of the company Zanzi Vivai.
Testo integrale: Testo integrale